Washington

Distinguished colleagues disagree on foreign aid

LIKE MOST freshmen members of Congress, Alan Dixon has kept a low profile during his first couple of years in Washington. But, during the Senate's debate of the fiscal 1983 budget resolution, the junior senator from Illinois offered an amendment that brought the state's senior senator, Charles Percy, to his feet to challenge Dixon publicly on the floor of the Senate.

As other senators looked on, Dixon and Percy debated the issue of foreign aid and whether it should be subject to the same scrutiny as other domestic programs that have come under President Reagan's budget-cutting knife. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Percy sought to protect his territory and beat down the attempt by Dixon to freeze foreign aid spending over the next three years at the 1982 level of $11.4 billion.

The debate lasted less than an hour, and Percy eventually killed the Dixon amendment in the Republican-controlled Senate. But each of their arguments was persuasive, and it was ironic that a Democrat was in the traditional Republican role of seeking less spending and a Republican was defending an increased level of foreign aid. Percy was peeved the amendment was introduced, because one day earlier he allowed a similar amendment by Sen. John Melcher (D., Mont.) to come up for a vote only after getting an agreement with Melcher that, once it was defeated, he would offer no more such amendments to the budget. Melcher was listed as a co-sponsor of the Dixon amendment, and he was conspicuously absent when Dixon brought it to the floor.

"I can only say to my colleague that I am astounded and disappointed to see this amendment, which I had absolutely no idea would be coming up," Percy told Dixon. "It is so seldom my distinguished colleague and I disagree on a basic issue. We have generally always been able to talk things out ahead of time. I wish he had given me even a few minutes' notice that he planned to offer this amendment. I regret we disagree.... but it does not detract one bit from my regard for my distinguished colleague."

But Percy quickly sought to squeeze Dixon on the issue where it hurts the most — with supporters back home. Percy said the Dixon amendment reduced spending growth for the Export-Import Bank, and he noted the bank provides financing for Caterpillar Tractor Co. and International Harvester. "I cannot believe my colleague would sponsor an amendment that could potentially undermine Illinois exports.... We have enough unemployment in Illinois now," said Percy.

The Republican charged the Dixon amendment, which sought to cut $2.4 billion from foreign aid spending growth over three years, "would decimate our foreign, military and economic assistance programs. Tunisia.... is beleaguered and beseiged by Col. Khadaffy in Libya.... Are we going to cut our Tunisian friends adrift? We cannot have a foreign policy if we do not have backup for it. What are we doing to do, back it up with mere words? Surely my colleague knows this amendment would jeopardize our friends and allies. I just cannot understand it."

Dixon, noting his "respect" and "profound affection" for Percy, stood his ground, however.

"The question is: Can we afford to do less for our country than we do for other countries?" Dixon asked. "I think in a time when we are contemplating substantial cuts in every area of our budget that it defies logic to suggest that we should not make savings in the area of foreign aid — savings that are conservative in scope....

"We are treating foreign aid better than we treat education. We are treating foreign aid better than we treat transportation in this country. We are treating foreign aid better than we treat the social and domestic programs that people care about. I say to my distinguished colleague, I ask for nothing different than what we have done elsewhere in the country."

Like most Democratic motions, the Dixon amendment was killed by a mostly party-line vote, 60 to 32.

The Percy-Dixon disagreement demonstrated the Reagan administration's insistence on sparing foreign aid from its budget cuts. Of the $2.4 billion in savings sought in the Dixon amendment, only $700 million would have come in 1983 — out of a total federal budget of $784 billion. But neither the White House nor Percy were willing to concede the Democrats that token cut. And as Dixon knows, Republicans rule the Senate.

August 1982 | Illinois Issues | 43